Amarica's Constitution Skrmetti Skirmish
Aug 6, 2025
Vik Amar, a Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Davis, joins the discussion on the landmark case US v. Skrmetti. They dive deep into the complexities of the law banning gender dysphoria treatments for minors, questioning if it amounts to sex discrimination. The conversation extends to transgender rights and the legal classifications that may warrant heightened judicial scrutiny. Amar and co-host Akhil articulate a unifying theory on these issues, linking them to broader concepts of equality as shaped by pivotal Supreme Court cases.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Birth-Based Legal Scrutiny
- Birth-based classifications trigger heightened legal scrutiny because they discriminate based on inherited traits.
- Race, sex, and national origin are classic examples where such scrutiny applies, while age laws receive lower scrutiny despite also being birth-based.
Suspect Classes and Transgender Status
- The court applies heightened scrutiny to laws targeting groups with historic de jure discrimination and political powerlessness.
- Justice Barrett questions if transgender status qualifies given lack of such long-standing legal discrimination.
Footnote 4: Judicial Review Shift
- Footnote 4 of Caroline Products marks the shift from economic to civil rights judicial scrutiny.
- It flagged discrimination against discrete and insular minorities as deserving deeper judicial inquiry.
